Windows Cheaper Than Linux, Says Microsoft

VNUNeet ^ | 5 November, 2002 | Rob Jones

[ShadowAce]

European chief argues that total cost of ownership is lower

Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle.

When asked by Gartner about Microsoft's intensifying battle against the open source operating system, European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois claimed that Linux is in fact more expensive to run than Windows.

Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he said.

Courtois claimed that Microsoft has been tracking the total cost of ownership (TCO) in 12 organisations across a range of business sectors, and that in 95 per cent of cases the "TCO was better on the Windows platform".

Licensing costs account for just five per cent of the total cost of an operating system, he said, and those plumping for Microsoft have an easier life in terms of application integration both internally and with external business partners.

But Courtois was challenged by Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's president of research in Europe.

He argued that the perception among chief information officers is that Linux and open source software is more cost-effective than Windows and Microsoft's Office applications.

"I do expect that some of your clients are looking for a response on licensing or more flexibility in the packaging," he said.

Courtois replied: "As soon as you start digging down you go beyond licensing. It's not that we are perfect with licensing; we need to make it simpler. But it's about the end-to-end environment."

He claimed that, with such a rich diversity of software applications and hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter integration by using Windows.

However, there is growing interest in Linux in the public sector. Last month, West Yorkshire police took delivery of Linux desktops as part of a trial for the operating system for English and Welsh forces.

And the European Commission handed open source advocate Netproject a €250,000 (£160,000) contract to conduct a feasibility study into running the operating system in government departments.

[Bush2000]

Your posts remind me of Microsoft press releases.

Seek therapy.

[TheEngineer]

Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he [European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois] said.

I can definitely say that running Windows 2000 saves me at least a few minutes per day in productivity, so it effectively justifies the licensing cost. I would suspect that it's the same for the vast majority of computer users. Let's face it... If you have an employee receiving $15 per hour and working on a computer, you don't want him wrestling with Linux just to save the $200 Windows licensing fee. Compared to the salary and benefits, that kind of money is down in the noise.

I've heard the arguments saying, "If a company has 20,000 employees, they would save $4,000,000 by using Linux!" Well that doesn't sound so great when you consider the dent that it will put into the productivity of a $600,000,000 payroll.

Linux for now is cost-effective for web servers, mail servers, and developers. That's where the significant user base is. Arguments to the contrary amount to saying that the marketplace is either wrong or too stupid to understand Linux's value.

Claims that the marketplace is wrong remind me of the democrat leaders saying that this week's voters were just too stupid or unsophisticated to hear their message. If you don't want to sound arrogant, you gotta accept the decisions of the marketplace as being correct.